2010 FIFA World Cup: Brazil Ranked No. 1 Going into World Cup
FIFA have released their World Rankings for June 2010, the last time the rankings will be published before the FIFA World Cup begins in South Africa in just over two weeks time.
Brazil remain at the head of the rankings, with Spain in second position ahead of their Iberian neighbors, Portugal, who are still third.
The only change in the top 10 sees France leapfrog Croatia into the ninth spot.
Nigeria (down one to 21) are the only team to slide out of the top 20, of which 17 will be present in South Africa next month. Only Russia, Egypt, and the aforementioned Croatia will be absent.
Just 20 friendly matches were played in the period in question with this week’s friendly matches not counting towards this month’s rankings.
The biggest movers were South Africa who climbed seven places after recent friendly victories over Thailand and Jamaica.
The World Cup hosts are now ranked 83 and will be the second-lowest ranked side in next month’s tournament with only Korea DPR (105) below them in the rankings.
New Zealand (78) are the only other side to have qualified and be ranked outside of the top 50.
Elsewhere, the Czech Republic continue to fall down the rankings, dropping four places to 33 this month, their lowest ranking since Sept.1995.
England remain in eighth position whilst their Group C opponents USA also hold their ranking at 14.
The next rankings will be released on July 14, three days after the FIFA World Cup Final and will include all results from the tournament.
FIFA World Rankings, Top 20, June 2010
(movements from May rankings in parenthesis)
1. Brazil (-)
2. Spain (-)
3. Portugal (-)
4. Netherlands (-)
5. Italy (-)
6. Germany (-)
7. Argentina (-)
8. England (-)
9. France (+1)
10. Croatia (-1)
11. Russia (-)
12. Egypt (+1)
13. Greece (-1)
14. USA (-)
15. Serbia (+1)
16. Uruguay (+2)
17. Mexico (-)
18. Chile (-3)
19. Cameroon (-)
20. Australia (-)
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?